TRADITIONAL AND RTI 1

Running Head: RTI

A Comparison of the Traditional and RTI Models of Child Problem Solving

Nathanial D. Drenker

Idaho State University

 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 2

A Comparison of the Traditional and RTI Models of Child Problem Solving

The profession of School Psychology as a whole, whether as a result of political

pressure or treatment efficacy, has been changing the way it assesses and meets the needs

of children. School Psychologists are moving away from their traditional role of a tester

who determining eligibility of children for special programs, to a role as an

interventionist for at risk children. The strengths and weaknesses of the traditional model

for assessment and placement of children and a problem solving approach in the form of

response to intervention are compared in the following sections.

Traditional Child Problem Model

The traditional child problem approach to providing services to children focuses

on generating a general intelligence quotient (IQ) score. The roles of a school

psychologist in the traditional child problem model are to asses the cause of a child’s

educational problem and provide that child with a diagnoses or “label”. Tests such as the

Wechler intelligence Scale For Children are given to a child and the results of those test

scores are compared to the child’s achievement scores. If there is a significant

discrepancy between how the child functions cognitively and how the child functions in

the classroom the child is provided a label. Labels the child receives grant the child

access to special services in order to fix the child’s problem. These services almost

exclusively involve removal from the regular education classroom and placement in

programs such as Special Education.

Strengths of the Child Problem Model

The primary strength of the child problem model is that children who score in the

cognitively impaired range on an IQ test are able to easily gain access to services such as
 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 3

Special Education. In the case of a cognitively impaired child, testing is strait forward

and an adequate and efficient way to determine the severity of a child’s educational

needs.

A second strength of the child problem model is it’s prevalence in schools. The

model has been used for a long time, and as a result generating an IQ score has been the

primary function of a school psychologist for decades. School Psychologists who have

been practicing under the system have become very proficient in administering IQ tests

and manipulating the current system to provide a child with services.

Weaknesses of the Child Problem Model

Unfortunately, the traditional child problem model is riddled with weaknesses.

The primary weakness of the traditional model is that it does almost nothing for children

without severe educational problems. A significant discrepancy between a child’s IQ and

academic achievement scores is required to provide a child with services. If a child is

low IQ but not cognitively impaired and has low achievement scores it is very difficult to

get that child help. In the traditional model, a child with low IQ and low Achievement is

performing where you would expect him to perform, and therefore does not qualify for

special services.

A second weakness in the child problem model is that it does not provide services

to children at risk for academic problems. For example, if a child is struggling with

reading under the current system, he has to be struggling enough that there is a

discrepancy between his achievement scores and our expectations. If this discrepancy is

not large enough, the child does not qualify for services. In the traditional model, the
 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 4

school psychologist is forced to wait until the child is struggling enough that he qualifies

for help.

Another weakness in the traditional model is the questionable effect of resources

such as Special Education. Evaluation of a child’s performance in the traditional system

is time consuming and done infrequently. If a child qualifies for services he will

generally be assessed once a year. With such infrequent assessment it becomes

impossible to determine if resources such as Special Education are providing any benefit

to the children who receive them.

A fourth major weakness in the traditional model is that the means of assessment

provides no empirically supported implications for treatment. An IQ test gives

information concerning an intelligence factor that may cause an observed problem, but no

information as to which treatments will be most effective in improving that problem.

Intelligence tests are also an inappropriate measure to determine if a child is improving.

As a result, the traditional model suffers a lack of adequate progress monitoring.

The RTI Problem Solving Model

The RTI problem solving model is based on the IDEAL problem solving model.

From the perspective of assessment, the first step is to identify the reason for concern for

the child. The second step is to define the problem the child is having in a way that can

be objectively measured. The third step is to explore interventions that might help

improve the child’s problem. The fourth step is to implement the intervention in a way

that ensures the quality of the intervention. The final step in the IDEAL problem solving

model is to look at the results of the intervention.

 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 5

The Response To Intervention aspect of the problem solving model deals with the

focus or objective of the model: achieving positive results for the child through

interventions. Interventions in an RTI approach are directed at all children with

problems, not just children with severe deficits. The RTI Problem solving approach has a

tiered framework for assessment in order to facilitate the needs of all children in schools

in accordance with the level of concern a child’s problem represents. Children who

require general instruction or assessment make up approximately 80-85% of students.

Children who require supplemental instruction make up 10-15% of students. Children

who require specialized instruction make up 5-10% of students.

An RTI approach to problem solving relies heavily on data collection. RTI

interventions are usually presented in the form of a single subject experimental design

(SSED). In an SSED, baseline data is collected then an intervention is administered and

data is collected and compared to baseline. To insure the quality of an intervention, data

collection occurs in two phases. In the baseline phase data on a student’s academic

concern is gathered prior to any interventions. In the intervention phase an intervention

is administered regularly with standardized procedures. Goals are set for a child’s

performance and data is assessed to see if the intervention is successfully assisting the

child in meeting those academic goals.

The RTI problem solving approach is ongoing. A child is assessed regularly and

decisions are made based on the effectiveness of the intervention. Types of intervention

are broken down into four levels based on the intensity of the problem. The first level is

simply a communication between parents and teachers, while the fourth level is

consideration for an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 6

Strengths of the RTI Problem Solving Model

As its name implies, the first strength of the Response to Intervention problem

solving model focuses on the results an intervention provides, or how a child responds to

an intervention. The goal of RTI is not to determine the specific cause of an academic

problem, but to develop a working intervention. This shift of focus from cause of

problem to results of interventions forces the RTI problem solving model to rely on

empirically supported treatments. In contrast to the traditional model, an RTI approach

requires collection of baseline data and frequent progress monitoring to determine if an

intervention is actually working. If an intervention does not improve a child’s

performance, it is modified or replaced. This provides the RTI approach with the ability

to document a child’s improvement as a result of an intervention.

A second strength of the RTI problem solving approach is that it is capable of

providing help for all children struggling in an educational setting, not just those with

severe deficits. RTI interventions are not limited to removal from classroom programs

such as Special Education. RTI interventions are tiered with concern to the severity of

the child’s academic needs. This provides the RTI problem solving model the ability to

asses and provide interventions to children who are struggling in academic areas who do

not meet traditional criteria for services.

A third strength of an RTI approach is that assessment has clear implications for

treatment. In an RTI approach, if a child’s problem is reading, the child’s basic skills can

be assessed with curriculum based measurements rather than an IQ test. Assessments in

an RTI approach include collaboration between teacher’s, parents, and the school

psychologist in order to determine the exact academic concern. As a result, the

 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 7

assessments used in an RTI approach help tailor an intervention for the child that

addresses the child’s problem.

An additional strength of the RTI approach is its reliance on data collection.

Baseline data collection demonstrates a child’s problem exists and helps establish clear

goals for the child’s performance. Progress monitoring data demonstrates whether or not

an intervention is succeeding in helping a child reach those goals. Classroom data

collection allows us to compare a child’s performance to peers in his classroom. RTI

interventions are empirically supported by quality of data, well constructed randomized

control studies, and quantity of data, data collected in at least two normal school settings.

Weaknesses of the RTI Problem Solving Model

The primary weakness of an RTI approach to problem solving is that the approach

is not being taken in schools. Students of the traditional model are not necessarily trained

in what the problem solving model requires. Collaboration between parents, teachers,

and School Psychologists is not a well established system of operating. RTI suffers some

waste of resources simply because it is new and very different from traditional

approaches.

Another weakness in RTI is that it requires integrity in data collection. Data must

be representative of what is going on in the educational setting, it must be collected

consistently as per the intervention requirements, and it must be analyzed effectively.

While collection of data is not necessarily time consumptive, when it is not done

correctly or at all, RTI cannot function as intended. Children’s individual needs are

addressed by an RTI approach and these needs can be very complex. The biggest
 TRADITIONAL AND RTI 8

weakness of an RTI approach is that it needs to be implemented correctly and

consistently in the schools to have the desired results and in many cases this is not done.

Conclusions

The traditional child problem model was designed to identify children with

special needs in academic areas and it was a success. Children with severe deficits were

singled out and actions were taken to assist them. However, the traditional model only

addresses the needs of a small percentage of students with academic problems and can

not be shown to address those needs effectively. School Psychology has shifted from a

focus on diagnosing children’s underlying problems to a focus on improving children’s

academic performance. An RTI Problem solving approach addresses many of the

weaknesses in the traditional model while ensuring the children assisted under the

traditional model continue receiving assistance.